mission field

Disagree. There is nothing in the text to suggest that. The context is all about the wicked who lie in wait. If you follow the flow of the text and rely solely, uh, upon the, uh, context, you could never come up with the "wicked" who lie in wait for the "he" to be God Who would have to "rise up" to draw the "mighty" with his power. Uh, it just don't make sense to say this is God, Who BTW, is already Risen up, High upon His Throne. Also of note, why would we believe this is God, when and if we look at this, to think God is lying in wait to destroy the mighty?

Disagree. I have never seen where the LORD God is guilty of the practice to lead astray. BBBBLLLLAAAAAANNNNNCCCCKKKK! (buzzer going off, that is nonsense)

I'm glad we know what you like, but using God in the place of "he" only confuses the passage. The rendering of "mashawk" as understood to be "draweth" as in the KJB or "draw away" in the nkjv, is the dead, uh, I did say DEAD, giveaway, simply because the LORD GOD doesn't "draw away", He draws to Himself.

OH! I love the harmony of Scripture! Don't you?

Would it be wrong to say that concupiscence is also an abnormal lust to try and disprove the KJB?

Just a thought.

 

I'm glad for a mission board to finally come to the knowledge of the Truth. But it is good to see you desire sympathizers with oyur distain towards the KJB.

Now, let me ask you, would it be harder to take all the mv's pile them all together, let those in your mission field take random pick, you sit down and explain all the different renderings into their language? or simply take the Word of God and explain what thus saith the Lord?

Do what you want to.

1st and goal, in enemy territory. (Result from a position of dire strait to have to punt.)

 

I don't mind your view, just your strident, militant pitch when some one disagrees with you.

 

Nope. Don't agree. I believe it's grievous to cause men to think God is lying in wait to draw the mighty into paths of destruction. You must lean towards Calvinism, right?

I'll agree we disagree, but I know I'm right. Besides, Where are these works of God in this passage? Sorry, I don't see one word that refers to the Lord except the Almighty in the first verse, and that is only to show in the rest of the 24 verses Who the wicked are fighting against.

Another mv error.

AV 1611 KJB: Superior.

 

Nope. Don't agree. I believe it's grievous to cause men to think God is lying in wait to draw the mighty into paths of destruction. You must lean towards Calvinism, right?

I'll agree we disagree, but I know I'm right. Besides, Where are these works of God in this passage? Sorry, I don't see one word that refers to the Lord except the Almighty in the first verse, and that is only to show in the rest of the 24 verses Who the wicked are fighting against.

Another mv error.

AV 1611 KJB: Superior. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr Bob, when are you gonna learn that qs cares nothing for context? our dear sister is going to do everything in her power to follow the Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect, even if it kills her! even if it doesn't line up with the Original. (more gifts for qs)

 

The Greek word rendered "concupiscence" in the KJV is 'epithumia', which means, a craving or lust for that which is forbidden. The AV also renders the word as lust(verb), lust after, and desire, in divers places.

The dictionary meaning of 'concupiscence' is to desire ardently.

According to the Greek, none of the meanings given in either the KJV or MVs are wrong. it's just in this case the AV men chose to use a big word instead of a little word. No harm, no foul.